Nancy Fraser on Feminism.

“What it really means is that they [mainstream feminists] want to be equal to the [wealthy,] straight, white men of their own class.”– Nancy Fraser.

Nancy Fraser [A]

Feminism is a part of the Zeitgeist and particularly among Australian – perhaps I should say English-speaking – identity Leftists it’s a thing, as kids like to say nowadays. Unfortunately, I know next to nothing about it. So, I’ve been trying to do some much needed catch up.

I must confess some of that effort proved to be – to my surprise – rather rewarding, although what I’ve learnt from that exercise was far from being entirely hopeful.

The first piece I want to recommend is the 2018 interview Nancy Fraser gave to Christine Schickert of the Global Dialogue, Magazine of the International Sociological Association.

Those more familiar with academic feminism, no doubt, know that she is “one of today’s most eminent critical theorists and feminist thinkers,” as the brief introduction to the interview succinctly states. Some middle class identitarian Leftists, however, who seem more interested on what people have to say about themselves – about, that is, their identities – than on what they have to say in their fields of expertise, may appreciate a little background on her.

Nancy Fraser is a professor of political and social sciences and philosophy at The New School for Social Research. During a decades-long academic career, she has published a number of books and held editorial positions in diverse learned journals. She has been awarded multiple honorary doctoral degrees and been involved in activism, starting with the anti-Vietnam war movement; she was a member of SDS (Students for a Democratic Society), the American New Left organisation of the 1960s.

I hope, therefore, those identitarian Leftists shall find her views acceptable, professionally, academically, politically, and socially

I will not attempt to sum up everything there in detail; instead readers are invited to judge by themselves. The interview itself is short, interesting and eminently readable.

I will comment however on a few things. Fraser is a friendly critic of feminism, or rather of a certain conception of feminism, currently prevalent in the Anglosphere – certainly in Australia – which focuses on issues like glass ceilings, under-representation, cultural issues and such. Fraser names Hillary Rodham Clinton as typical of this kind of feminists.

“Recognition” is the term academic feminists use to denote that understanding of feminism. Fraser calls that version of feminism variously as “liberal” or “mainstream” feminism. I suppose one could call it “neoliberal feminism” – neoliberalism being a notion Fraser finds useful.

Without abandoning recognition, Fraser proposes a shift to a feminism more focused on distribution (“feminism for the 99%”, she calls it). That suggests a return to some sort of socialism and is encouraging.

It would be a mistake, however, to see too much in that. Fraser doesn’t seem to be a born-again Marxist – nor does she claim to be one. In fact, Marxists will have some difficulty recognising her “socialism” – in her own views something more like a Bernie Sanders kind of socialism. Her views don’t seem entirely consistent either (readers, too, should be the judges of that).

Fraser also explains how, in her views, the original more socialistic feminism of the 1960s morphed gradually into “neoliberal feminism”. I would suggest readers to pay close attention to that, for it has attracted much attention from believers in “cultural Marxism”.

The interview itself does not go entirely without glitches: asked whether identity politics had anything to do with the rise of Right-wing populists in the US and Europe – as it’s often said – Fraser did not answer.

Further reading:
“Feminist Politics in the Age of Recognition: a Two-Dimensional Approach to Gender Justice”, originally published in March 2007. Studies in Social Justice 1(1): available online.

Image Credits
[A] “Nancy Fraser 2008 in Jena”. Author: Bunnyfrosch. Source: WikiMedia. File licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported, 2.5 Generic, 2.0 Generic and 1.0 Generic license. Nobody, the the licensor include, endorses me or my use of the file.